Pragya Ashok Nair1, Kira Pariath1. 1. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Gujarat, India. E-mail: drpragash2000@yahoo.com.
Sir,We read with great interest the article, “Clinical and Histopathological Response to Multidrug Therapy in Paucibacillary Leprosy at the end of 6 Months: A Prospective Observational Study from Eastern India” which appeared in the Indian Journal of Dermatology, Issue 1, Volume 63, January–February 2018.[1]The authors stated that relatively high proportion (14%) of the lesions were in Type 1 reaction (T1R) at the time of diagnosis in this study. However, in the clinical scoring system, they had not considered T1R or Type 2 reaction (T2R) as a measure of clinical scoring, especially since they mentioned that borderline tuberculoid was the most common type of paucibacillary (PB) leprosy present in the study. Borderline leprosy cases are immunologically unstable with frequent changes in cell-mediated immunity even in untreated cases (as previously untreated cases were considered in this study). Moreover, histological correlates that are suggestive of T1R include dermal edema, intercellular edema in granulomas, necrosis in the center of granuloma, apoptosis of lymphocytes, and presence of multiple, large giant cells.[2] Upgrading reactions seen after beginning multidrug therapy (MDT) are characterized by the influx of lymphocytes and development of large giant cells with dermal and intercellular edema whereas downgrading of immunity toward the lepromatous pole results in change in morphology of histiocytes from epithelioid to histiocytic macrophages with foamy and vacuolated cytoplasm.[3] These histopathological features have not been considered separately in the study.Histopathological features of reaction may even be seen in patients who have no clinical signs of the same, duly explained by the time lag between immunological shifts and the corresponding clinicohistopathological findings. Clinical changes occur much later than the tissue changes that are reflected in the histopathology.[3]Hence, we suggest that the clinical scoring as well as the histopathological assessment done in the study should preferably have included T1R and T2R to correctly assess the efficacy of treatment post-MDT-PB regimen.